Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/10/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]One Lugger said: "Hey Bill, I for one thing the LHSA did the right thing, and the fair thing. It's too bad some have to complain about this as I don't see any reason for them do do so." Let me make clear: I do not complain about what was done. (Whether it was fair to those who ordered early and paid up front is another question.) The decisions made were understandable. However, I do think it was not right to make an announcement describing a set of rules and then not explain to the membership when the rules were changed. After all, it was much more convenient for members to order through a dealer than to order through LHSA and pay 100% up front. When announced rules are changed without an explanation, inevitably rumors fly. Why could LHSA not have sent a letter to members explaining what was being done and why? Then, I am sure, there would have been no complaints. The same is true re numbers ordered. Since LHSA and Leica USA presumably knew how many orders were submitted by early July (if they enforced a June 30 deadline as we are assurred they did), why were the total number of orders not announced promptly? I see no reason we had to ask repeatedly before the final numbers were divulged. Again, the lack of prompt official information led to unfair and inaccurate speculation. Whether it is an organization or a business, full and prompt disclosure of matters affecting the members or consumers is always the best policy. I still cannot grasp why LHSA and Leica USA haven't yet caught on to an obvious principle of public relations. Jack